Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Wed, 27 Jan 2010 17:52:17 +0200
From:      Shteryana Shopova <syrinx@FreeBSD.org>
To:        Steven Hartland <killing@multiplay.co.uk>
Cc:        freebsd-net@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: Problems getting lagg to balance using lacp
Message-ID:  <61b573981001270752q4e21a8a9ldf19718ca3fb474c@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <251ACDBA39F244B7B8D1520DE3C95DF1@multiplay.co.uk>
References:  <8E2B6E11A79B4958B94B44A41C7D4298@multiplay.co.uk> <61b573981001270543k6514a5g8d4f679777b69b49@mail.gmail.com> <251ACDBA39F244B7B8D1520DE3C95DF1@multiplay.co.uk>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 5:25 PM, Steven Hartland
<killing@multiplay.co.uk> wrote:
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Shteryana Shopova" <syrinx@FreeBSD.org>
>
>> What types of traffic streams are you testing this with? if_lagg will
>> use the SRC/DST MACs and IP addresses for IP traffic to decide which
>> member port of the lagg to sent the traffic out to, balancing of
>> incoming traffic should be done by the Cisco on the same principle.
>> Try a different laggproto for the if_lagg interface e.g. roundrobin
>> with channel-group <number> mode on set on the switchports.
>
> I was testing with iperf to and from two other machines on the network.
>
> If I tested with one machine I got 1g throughput, with 2 machines I
> got ~500Mbps on each, for both inbound and outbound on em1.
>
> == laggproto lacp + channel-group 2 mode active ==
> Got the same with both inbound and outbound connection
>
> == laggproto fec + channel-group 2 mode on ==
> Got the same with both inbound and outbound connection
>
> == laggproto loadbalance + channel-group 2 mode on ==
> Got the same with both inbound and outbound connection
>
> == laggproto roundrobin + channel-group 2 mode on ==,
> Instead of 1Gbps throughput on one interface I get 500Mbps on each for
> outbound only still no change with inbound.
>
> Any other ideas?
>
>

Inbound load balancing is controlled by the Cisco - try playing with
different options for <port-channel load-balance> - I guess
src-dst-port option (if available) should give better results.

cheers,
Shteryana



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?61b573981001270752q4e21a8a9ldf19718ca3fb474c>